While some of your post makes sense, I think you're still missing the distinction between 'desire' and 'addiction'. Truly, the line is blurred somewhat, but I think we can safely say that the want for light is a desire and not an addiction. Girlfriends I've found are a little of both.
They don't click their lights on and off to generate dopamine from it.
But they are distressed when its taken away.
And of course they are. I realize that the following isn't a perfect analogy, but if you had your AC going on a hot day, and I turned it off, wouldn't you feel some amount of distress? You can't try to ball the two terms together, because there is a major difference between an addictive substance and a desirable substance. By dictionary.com - a desire is "a longing or craving, as for something that brings satisfaction or enjoyment", whereas the article for addiction says "the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma."
And while some guys really are enslaved to their girlfriends, I think most relationships in life fail to fit under that header;).
At first, I read your post as "Kayla's getting ready to blow", and thought, 'He has a girlfriend named Kayla too? Weird.' I'll leave that open to translation...
No debunking necessary. You're absolutely right. A soul is totally worthless to God(He's frikking God, why would he need anything we have?). He just doesn't feel like letting all those people He created just... die. It's sympathy and love and all that stuff that logic fails to evaluate. Disclaimer; logic is not bad, I would prefer it's use as much as possible, I am not poo-pooing it.
How this was modded up, I'll never know. In response to your first accusation...
You were not there
You weren't either. The only information sources we have available are the video, and the military's statements. It's your decision as to whether or not to believe, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
A person without a weapon is a person without a weapon. You do not MURDER UNARMED PEOPLE just because there IS an ARMED person with them.
Wholeheartedly agreed. While I'm not sure if you are referring to a particular segment of the recorded carnage, I would like to say this - it's not as if they were picking them off with sniper fire. They identified the group as being a group with weapons(taking the RPGs into special consideration), and thus identified the group as hostile. And so they were given a green light to fire *on the group*.
Your logic is so flawed, by its own fallacy, as soon as we invaded Iraq, there is no difference between "bad people" all are bad, even if they dont have weapons - thus, there are no civilians.
FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!
I believe your logic is flawed here. The flaw being the presence of armed individuals. If all Iraqi civilians moved in groups which carried RPGs; then yes, there would be "no civilians".
I would have thought this post to be hilariously cynical, except that it's attacking a valid piece of information - not all alternative aircraft takeoff under their own power.
I am a Christian American. The mass majority of my decisions, indeed, even sex-related political stance, are not guided by a preacher, priest, or by the Bible. I can practically echo the AC from NZ on this point. With that said, I personally am waiting til I marry. That's just my own decision though - I don't try to change other people's minds about it.
Despite only being seventeen, I agree with you completely. If I may offer an observation from a homeschooler's POV - everything today is contributing to the lack of morality and and respect. Like you've mentioned; TV is getting worse(in terms of inappropriate/senseless), the internet doesn't care who sees what. Parents are probably contributing, but mine have been decent and strong all my life, so I can't comment there. Drugs are plentiful and available, 'loud music' is constantly pumping through iPods.
With that said, I'm on the internet 45% of my days, listen to that music with the help of my iPod, and play far more PC games than I can imagine to be healthy. But, I consider myself to be a cognizant, thoughtful(if a little fuzzy-brained) teenage boy. The problem I'm finding is less that kids today have exposure to loads of crap as mentioned(though that obviously is major), but more that they're told that it's okay. When I was growing up(which wasn't so far in the past, and doesn't seem to be over yet), I saw things like that often - but I turned away, with Mom and Dad's early warnings in my ears. When someone goes to school though(!), they link up with their friends, all of who are doing exactly what they were told off for - and then pushed to believe that it's okay. It's okay, it's okay, it's okay - all the other kids are having sex, why not me too? And if they're nervous or scared, their friends will break them of that - whether through "You can do it man!" or "Pussy, go back home to your momma"(disclaimer: I don't even know what the wording would be, just concentrate on the intention behind the phrases). So then it begins to spiral downwards, where it could have been nipped at the bud. My opinion? It sure as hell ain't okay and never will be. If it's possible to convince the generations this deep in though, I don't know the way.
You've repeated that opinion, 'stunted way to view'. It is in very stunted thinking to say that governmental actions == human interactions. Not even just stunted, but oblivious to state the two as being the same. In your whole sad life, you don't seem to have encountered any education regarding human interaction. Your statements and arguments are akin to much of the loose-cannon trolls on this site. I then am deciding to leave the conversation. This decision was made in my own interests, but not guided by fear. This is different from masses of governmental decisions. Good day.
That's twice. You're twisting GP's meaning, despite having been explained to. I'll echo him - the normal interactions between people in their daily lives, and the decisions made in governmental situations are different, almost to an extreme. At your job(I'll assume you have one), do you do what your supervisor/boss/whatever wants done, simply out of the goodness of your heart? No, hell no. You do it because you know you'll be fired if you don't. And you don't want to be fired; you fear it(I realize some people don't, but take that as a general rule). This is significantly different from the interaction you have with, say, a guy you hang with at a party. You guys hang out, have a couple drinks, chat for a bit. Why? Because you're human and its enjoyable. No fear involved.
Please don't mutate the words of the GP. He made his point clear, and his point is understandable and, best as I can tell, true. Governmental decision making is almost always under influence of that fear(except in the rare cases mentioned). Human interactions != government.
Does it matter who's name you use though? The [however many GP posts up] lead us to this conversation by suggesting a brute force hack - equip it with a name dictionary, and you're well on your way to breaking it no matter which member of your family was substituted, darou?
If I'm reading the situation right(and I might not be), the Google-China clash is somewhat different. From what I've read on the conflict, China taking action on Google now would be less "Google made us do it" and more "We've defined this to be just and right, so we did it" - consequences ignored, however.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow... I think the following XKCD is obligatory.
http://xkcd.com/385/
...even from a purely Christian POV, the parent is entirely nonsensical.
There's a great joke in there somewhere, but a mortal such as myself cannot discern it.
Your mom is -
Eh, never mind.
Logic Nazi wannabe. Try this on for size - Maybe his want for the iPad is zero, but his desire for a notebook is less than zero.
Sidewalks and streets are perfect for biking, skating, running races...
Use what you have.
And of course they are. I realize that the following isn't a perfect analogy, but if you had your AC going on a hot day, and I turned it off, wouldn't you feel some amount of distress? You can't try to ball the two terms together, because there is a major difference between an addictive substance and a desirable substance.
;).
By dictionary.com - a desire is
"a longing or craving, as for something that brings satisfaction or enjoyment", whereas the article for addiction says
"the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma."
And while some guys really are enslaved to their girlfriends, I think most relationships in life fail to fit under that header
At first, I read your post as "Kayla's getting ready to blow", and thought, 'He has a girlfriend named Kayla too? Weird.' I'll leave that open to translation...
No debunking necessary. You're absolutely right. A soul is totally worthless to God(He's frikking God, why would he need anything we have?). He just doesn't feel like letting all those people He created just... die. It's sympathy and love and all that stuff that logic fails to evaluate.
Disclaimer; logic is not bad, I would prefer it's use as much as possible, I am not poo-pooing it.
Good thing these unmanned satellites didn't have to explore very far, or they'd really be on our asses about it.
/sardonic
If they're looking to save money, why haven't they tried switching to Geiko?
Fuck.
In response to your first accusation...
You weren't either. The only information sources we have available are the video, and the military's statements. It's your decision as to whether or not to believe, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Wholeheartedly agreed. While I'm not sure if you are referring to a particular segment of the recorded carnage, I would like to say this - it's not as if they were picking them off with sniper fire. They identified the group as being a group with weapons(taking the RPGs into special consideration), and thus identified the group as hostile. And so they were given a green light to fire *on the group*.
I believe your logic is flawed here. The flaw being the presence of armed individuals. If all Iraqi civilians moved in groups which carried RPGs; then yes, there would be "no civilians".
That's exactly what I was thinking - maybe the bullet won't kill you, but will the shirt?
I would have thought this post to be hilariously cynical, except that it's attacking a valid piece of information - not all alternative aircraft takeoff under their own power.
I am a Christian American.
The mass majority of my decisions, indeed, even sex-related political stance, are not guided by a preacher, priest, or by the Bible. I can practically echo the AC from NZ on this point.
With that said, I personally am waiting til I marry. That's just my own decision though - I don't try to change other people's minds about it.
In Soviet Russia, the light sheds *you*!
"...my ex-Marine uncle..."
I may be nit picking, but there's no such thing as an ex-Marine.
Despite only being seventeen, I agree with you completely. If I may offer an observation from a homeschooler's POV - everything today is contributing to the lack of morality and and respect. Like you've mentioned; TV is getting worse(in terms of inappropriate/senseless), the internet doesn't care who sees what. Parents are probably contributing, but mine have been decent and strong all my life, so I can't comment there. Drugs are plentiful and available, 'loud music' is constantly pumping through iPods.
With that said, I'm on the internet 45% of my days, listen to that music with the help of my iPod, and play far more PC games than I can imagine to be healthy. But, I consider myself to be a cognizant, thoughtful(if a little fuzzy-brained) teenage boy. The problem I'm finding is less that kids today have exposure to loads of crap as mentioned(though that obviously is major), but more that they're told that it's okay. When I was growing up(which wasn't so far in the past, and doesn't seem to be over yet), I saw things like that often - but I turned away, with Mom and Dad's early warnings in my ears. When someone goes to school though(!), they link up with their friends, all of who are doing exactly what they were told off for - and then pushed to believe that it's okay. It's okay, it's okay, it's okay - all the other kids are having sex, why not me too? And if they're nervous or scared, their friends will break them of that - whether through "You can do it man!" or "Pussy, go back home to your momma"(disclaimer: I don't even know what the wording would be, just concentrate on the intention behind the phrases). So then it begins to spiral downwards, where it could have been nipped at the bud. My opinion? It sure as hell ain't okay and never will be. If it's possible to convince the generations this deep in though, I don't know the way.
You've repeated that opinion, 'stunted way to view'. It is in very stunted thinking to say that governmental actions == human interactions. Not even just stunted, but oblivious to state the two as being the same. In your whole sad life, you don't seem to have encountered any education regarding human interaction. Your statements and arguments are akin to much of the loose-cannon trolls on this site. I then am deciding to leave the conversation. This decision was made in my own interests, but not guided by fear. This is different from masses of governmental decisions.
Good day.
That's twice. You're twisting GP's meaning, despite having been explained to. I'll echo him - the normal interactions between people in their daily lives, and the decisions made in governmental situations are different, almost to an extreme. At your job(I'll assume you have one), do you do what your supervisor/boss/whatever wants done, simply out of the goodness of your heart? No, hell no. You do it because you know you'll be fired if you don't. And you don't want to be fired; you fear it(I realize some people don't, but take that as a general rule). This is significantly different from the interaction you have with, say, a guy you hang with at a party. You guys hang out, have a couple drinks, chat for a bit. Why? Because you're human and its enjoyable. No fear involved.
Please don't mutate the words of the GP. He made his point clear, and his point is understandable and, best as I can tell, true. Governmental decision making is almost always under influence of that fear(except in the rare cases mentioned). Human interactions != government.
An easier way to say this is "One man's shitty work leads to another's."
Does it matter who's name you use though? The [however many GP posts up] lead us to this conversation by suggesting a brute force hack - equip it with a name dictionary, and you're well on your way to breaking it no matter which member of your family was substituted, darou?
Microwave laser 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
Better?
If I'm reading the situation right(and I might not be), the Google-China clash is somewhat different. From what I've read on the conflict, China taking action on Google now would be less "Google made us do it" and more "We've defined this to be just and right, so we did it" - consequences ignored, however.